Retrieve estimated monthly cloud usage, prepaid credits balance, or billing summary; optionally filter by region or project ID.
Get estimated monthly usage, prepaid credits balance, or billing summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | No | Location/region code (optional: if omitted, checks across all regions). | |
| project_id | No | Project ID (optional: if omitted, checks across default/all projects). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description does not state that explicitly, nor does it mention permission/credential requirements or what determines which of the three outputs is produced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. The 'or' construction creates ambiguity rather than adding clarity, slightly limiting its efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-optional-param read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the basics. But with no annotations and no output schema, it should at least state that it is a read-only operation and what governs the choice among the three reported values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters (location, project_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Get') and the billing resources it covers (usage, credits balance, summary), so the agent knows the domain. However, the 'or' phrasing leaves it unclear what actually determines which of the three is returned, so it is clear on purpose but not precise about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. Siblings are all resource-management tools, so an agent has no guidance on when billing lookup applies versus other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.